Re: Localized Ocean Fertilization is not OIF. It's vastly better
Peter Fiekowsky
Dear Chris Vivian, Ken Buesseler, and the whole CDR community,
Thank you for responding powerfully and thoughtfully to my substack piece. A special thank you for your courage and effort in reviewing and responding to it. Your input has been most useful to me and my team in maturing this work. I see a possible resolution, proposed at the end. Please stick with me here.
We are all in this together…collaboration creates the best breakthrough outcomes, especially after conflict.
As Chris Vivian (co-chair of the UN GESAMP group on marine environmental protection) said below and two years ago, and Ken reiterates, removing 12 or 17 Gt of CO2 in the 18 months following Mt. Pinatubo is implausible given what the field has known for decades about ocean biological carbon pumps.
My work on this started with studying Sarmiento (1993) (no paywall here), in which he discusses work with David and Ralph Keeling. Sarmiento noted a 1.5 ppm CO2-removal anomaly following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, for which the plausible explanation at the time was a phytoplankton carbon pump. They largely excluded terrestrial photosynthesis based on the O2 to CO2 ratio.
Today their conclusion (and mine) are that Mauna Loa data shows CO2 removal 5 to 10 times faster than GESAMP tells us is possible in the whole ocean. That fact makes Sarmiento's phytoplankton pump model implausible and therefore wrong. Its careful analyses are seldom considered now.
In 1993 Sarmiento had just two years of data after the eruption, and today we have over 30 years. We extended the CO2 data analysis well beyond the end of the 1991-1995 El Nino, as shown in fig. 1. The long-term analysis increases the removal somewhat to 2.25 ppm and shows, remarkably, that the removed CO2 has not perceptibly returned to the atmosphere. References and details are in our forthcoming paper.
This permanence further eliminates CO2 removal models based on terrestrial carbon capture, of which only a small fraction sustains beyond a year. It also disqualifies aerosol induced sunlight and temperature effects which also would last 1-2 years and contribute less than 4% to the anomaly according to Sarmiento.
Long-term carbon removal begs the question of where 2.5 Gt of carbon (Sarmiento) could hide where it has not yet been found. Tree ring data indicates slowed (not increased) terrestrial growth corresponding to the 2% lower solar flux.
Most critically, no excess seafloor carbon or increased fish catch has been reported from that time, according to experts.
The downwelling eddy hypothesis solves this mystery. It calls for the biocarbon to dissolve into bicarbonate as it sinks towards the 3 km depth of the Pinatubo ashfall area. Overall that huge 2.5 Gt of removed carbon would increase ocean bicarbonate concentration by an undetectable 0.01%.
Further analysis, comparing the Pinatubo CO2 anomaly, as Sarmiento called it, to other eruptions which cooled the planet similarly, show that only 3 of 9 such eruptions since 1500 preceded a CO2 anomaly. Those 3, and only those, had ash fall in regions near downwelling eddies.
No ashfall near eddies corresponds to no CO2 anomaly. Fig 1 top panel shows the two eruptions in the Keeling Curve timeframe with significant cooling but no CO2 anomaly. This data further disqualifies terrestrial carbon and aerosol induced explanations which should occur after all such large eruptions.
Fig. 1. The lower panel compares actual CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa (solid blue) with expected CO2 levels (dotted green). The discrepancy indicates long-term removal of 2.25 ppm of CO2. The upper panel shows that two eruptions of similar size and global cooling impact, Agung (1963) and El Chichon (1983) led to no persistent CO2 removal. (from Fiekowsky and Burnham, 2025)
This new model, which we call Localized Ocean Fertilization (LOF), is described in a substack and a paper being prepared for publication. It extends Sarmiento’s model with two processes.
First is ocean fertilization by volcanic ash, distributed in a region with downwelling eddies. Sufficient iron distribution allows nitrogen-fixing Trichodesmium to grow, thus providing nitrates needed to support rapid photosynthesis and phytoplankton growth over multiple months (fig. 1).
Second, we propose that the eddy pulls significant biocarbon down to the ocean depths before fish eat and metabolize most of it back into CO2, as is consistently observed with OIF in non-eddy regions. This explains the 67% of large eruptions with no CO2 impact. The downward eddy flow gradually pulls fresh nutrient rich surrounding water into the area.
Recent work by Sophie Bonnet and Seth John confirm that an increased supply of iron enables the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which in turn provide nitrates that sustain phytoplankton blooms. Seth John further points to flexibility in the amount of phosphorus required.
So far, the LOF hypothesis, to be published soon, is validated by carbon-sequestration data from several sources: 1) ice core data related to nine large volcanic eruptions over the last 500 years; 2) NASA’s OCO-2 and OCO-3 satellites, and 3) Smetacek’s 2004 EIFEX experiment. They all point to the role of downwelling eddies as dominant in marine carbon sequestration. In conclusion, I propose that we interimly agree to 1) accept Sarmiento’s and Keeling’s 1993 analysis, and 2) collaboratively test the proposed LOF model that explains the extended duration, magnitude, and carbon undetectability of post-eruption CO2 removal.
In conclusion, I propose that we tentatively agree to 1) accept Sarmiento’s and Keelings’ 1993 analysis, and 2) collaboratively test the proposed LOF model that explains the extended duration, magnitude and carbon undetectability of post-eruption CO2 removal. If the LOF model is falsified and no other hypotheses emerge that can explain the Keeling Curve CO2 data, then dismissing Sarmiento’s analysis could again be the wise approach.
Chris and Ken—would you consider that temporary, two part proposal?
Would you schedule time to discuss it next week?
With deep respect and appreciation,
Peter
Peter Fiekowsky
Peter,
There are quite a number of problems with your Localized Ocean Fertilization (LOF) proposal, most of which you are already aware of (e.g., see my email response to you of 12 September 2023). In my attached response I will primarily focus on your estimate of the CO2 decline after the Mt Pinatubo eruption and make some short comments about a few other points.
The conclusion of my response is:
There was no large-scale ocean fertilization event in the South China Sea in 1992-1993 following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 as:
- Your calculation of the estimated CO2 removal is based on a flawed methodology that greatly exaggerates the decline in atmospheric CO2 and is thus invalid.
- The real removal of atmospheric CO2 in that period was due to terrestrial uptake, mainly in North America, coupled with a reduction in emissions that together explain the actual decline in atmospheric CO2.
- Consequently, there is no need to invoke speculative Local Ocean Fertilization to explain the decline in atmospheric CO2 following the Mt Pinatubo eruption.
Best wishes
Chris.
Apologies for cross postings today, but Peter asked for comment and here is mine on scaling of C sinks and ocean area required to support localized OIF.
Hi Peter et al.
Here is some feedback as requested on your latest blog on Pinatubo and ocean iron fertilization (OIF) and its outsized impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Bottom line is there are simply not enough nutrients nor phytoplankton to support your claims.
Let’s take a moment to consider the ocean’s biological carbon pump (BCP) and the opinion that past events (1992 Pinatubo eruption) or purposeful ocean iron fertilization could conceivably remove close to 20 Gt CO2-eq (one Gt = 1 billion tonnes) of atmospheric CO2, by processes that take place in only 1/1000th of the area of the ocean. The latest incarnation of this claim invokes nitrogen fixers and downwelling eddies to act as conduits to fast track organic carbon flow to the ocean depths.
There are many published papers about how the Pinatubo eruption and subsequent reduction of atmospheric CO2, need not involve marine phytoplankton at all (e.g. McKinley et al.). This claim to the contrary requires considering ocean productivity, which depends upon sunlight and nutrients, and scaling to regional and global impacts.
To grow, phytoplankton requires not just iron and any nitrogen they can source from N2 fixation, but also phosphorus and other essential micronutrients. Drawing on Alfred Redfield’s seminal ratio of phytoplankton C and major nutrients in the ocean- C:N:P = 106:16:1, and even though the Redfield ratio can vary by a factor of two or more under some circumstances, there is no way to support a 20 Gt BCP without 1000’s of times more P supply than in the surface ocean For example, assuming that open ocean surface waters contain 0.01-0.05 µmol P per liter for a 50 m photic zone in 1/1000th of the ocean area, then one falls many orders of magnitude short of P needed to support of 20 Gt CO2 removal by.
Even if there were enough P available for phytoplankton to do this, how would this compare to the global range of phytoplankton biomass (0.1-1 Gt C) and net productivity rates (50-60 Gt C/yr). All together, these phytoplankton and marine food webs support a global BCP that is on order 5-12 Gt C/yr (19-45 Gt CO2-eq). So how can one claim that in only 1/1000th of the ocean, this volcanic event was of similar scale?
Peter Fiekowsky has started attributing a quote to me that I used at COP30, which I want to correctly attribute to Daniel Patrick Moynahan- “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts”.
You can have an opinion of a 20 Gt CO2 Pinatubo based OIF ocean sink, and claim it can be done in 1/1000th of the ocean, but you need to back that up with an answer to where do all of these marine phytoplankton come from, or more fundamentally where do all the nutrients come from? That’s at the crux of this opinion vs fact-based assessment of the scale responsible OIF might contribute to marine CO2 removal (on order single Gt CO2/yr).
Yes, the BCP can be responsive to iron, and volcanic eruptions release iron, but there are physical limits and here, facts matter. Call it by a new name, “localized” OIF, and invoke downwelling eddies, or not. But it’s an opinion and not a fact, if it’s not supported by a simple mass balance for all the nutrients and massive phytoplankton C growth needed to invoke OIF as the cause. Grossly exaggerating OIF’s impacts only erodes the public trust. We don’t have to over promise to consider OIF as one of several marine carbon dioxide removal approaches that deserves further study. Beliefs or opinions are best kept out of this.
Thanks for your consideration.
Ken Buesseler
Emeritus Research Scholar, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://cafethorium.whoi.edu @cafethorium.bsky.social
Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity
Executive Director, Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions
https://oceaniron.org/ @exois-oceaniron.bsky.social
From: Google Calendar <calendar-n...@google.com> On Behalf Of Peter Fiekowsky
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 3:51 PM
To: akbu...@yahoo.com; b.frank....@gmx.de; brent....@earthandwatergroup.com; cdou...@gmail.com; chris...@calton.us; cmr...@gmail.com; dan...@liquidtrees.org; danmi...@gmail.com; da...@42tek.com; edward...@gmail.com; emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org <emma-r...@alumni.stanford.edu>; evanhu...@yahoo.com; fmcch...@gmail.com; hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com; ilan....@gmail.com; ja...@lucentbiosciences.com; jenn.b...@positivepolar.com; jo...@transmediavision.net; ju...@f4cr.org; Ken Buesseler <kbues...@whoi.edu>; kevin...@gmail.com; la...@thorntonusa.com; nali...@carnegiestewart.com; pcpet...@me.com; peterdr...@yahoo.com; pgro...@gmail.com; pre...@temcapital.com; rjwe...@gmail.com; sai...@newconsensus.com; stevenja...@gmail.com; ted.cr...@gmail.com <tedcro...@gmail.com>; thanh....@gmail.com; tomi....@oceanry.org; tony.mich...@gmail.com; tuc...@americangeo.org; victor....@awi.de; votec...@gmail.com; za...@newconsensus.com; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Localized Ocean Fertilization is not OIF. It's vastly better
2026 OIF Consortium
We discussed this new substack piece on the OIF Consortium call.
I'm excited to share this with everyone.
Note the new discussion comparing the 1%-2% of carbon that sinks as diatoms and the 50% carbon sequestration in downwelling eddies.
Michael MacCracken
Hi Peter--
One point of your analysis that I consider weak before getting to your hypothesis of ocean eddy uptake is that I don't see how tree rings not showing growth rules out terrestrial carbon uptake. That Pinatubo caused an increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is based, as I understand it, on the downward light, being more diffuse, getting greater penetration to the understory vegetation and this is where the additional carbon is taken up, not by the trees and so not evident in the tree rings.
As to suggestion that this uptake would not sequester carbon over more than a few years, I can speak only from my experience in the woods of northwestern Connecticut where our summer home is and that is that there sure seems to have built up a lot of understory litter (small diameter starts of trees that just did not make it, and not just more leaves) that does not seem to decay very fast and then also, with some warming, denser vegetation, often of new types that are often referred to as invasive. At least in New England, which was essentially deforested for charcoal ad building wooden ships through the 19th century and beyond, my sense is that the reforestation process taking place is ongoing and continuing to build up soil carbon. In that this reforestation has been going on at least somewhat in other regions that had been deforested, might that be where the extra carbon has gone? I would think isotopic analyses might give clues to resolving this and would thus think a good bit more careful analysis is needed to rule out the forest under-story hypothesis.
Best, Mike MacCracken
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAEr4H2nzdQas6Hq2HvdcgFBV77Bo0AcpAQYPni12Z_vxYzPPUg%40mail.gmail.com.
Peter Fiekowsky
Peter
Dear All, in particular Peter,
In the spirit of collaboration and mutual respect you raise in your mail, I would like to clarify some points you made there, of which the properties attributed to up- or downwelling eddies is the most crucial. Eddies hardly transport anything up or down like escalators or lifts, they just rotate horizontally while maintaining the overall density stratification. During rotation and because of Coriolis, they push water to the right in the Northern Hemisphere (and left in the Southern) which results in clockwise eddies pushing water inward, the so-called downwelling eddies, like the subtropical Gyre in the central Atlantic. Because of lighter, warm water piling up in the centre, the middle of a warm core eddy or gyre lies above its borders. In mesoscale eddies - about 100 km in diameter - the difference is in decimetres and conspicuous in satellite images of sea surface height anomalies (SSHA). The warm surface layer is not only higher at the top but also deeper in the middle, i.e. the pycnocline or density discontinuity layer separating warm surface from cold deeper water, dips downward, hence the term “downwelling eddy” or a warm core eddy.
Anticlockwise eddies push outward, and pull colder, deeper water upward, reflected in “doming” of isopycnals; nevertheless, the surface at the centre lies deeper than its boundaries because the enclosed water mass is denser. However, at depth, the doming of the pycnocline at the centre of the cold core eddy enables it to be eroded and mixed into the surface wind-mixed layer. This process, called diapycnal mixing, adds nutrient-rich, cold deep water to it. Particulate carbon formed from the nutrients mixed into the surface layer can only leave the layer by sinking, as individual particles, out of it.
The overall shape of a downwelling, better called an inward-deflecting, eddy is a pimple on the surface and a dimple on the pycnocline, i.e the overall shape of a convex lens, in contrast, an upwelling or outward-deflecting eddy has the overall shape of a concave lens, the centre lower at the top, but shallower at depth. That’s how water is transported up or down in eddies. Stratification is not disrupted but can be bent and tilted. A similar effect – raising or sinking the pycnocline – is caused by internal waves. Eddies collapse not by simply dissolving into the surroundings but by the core water captured by the meander of a front, generally leaking out of the enclosing border.
It’s worthwhile mentioning that mesoscale eddies have the relative dimensions of a coin rather than a column: on average 100 km across and 3.7 km thick. One needs to use technical terms like vorticity, derived from equations, when describing the dynamics of eddies because these properties, manifested over kilometres and more, are not accessible to our sense organs. We cannot “see” the Coriolis effect in action, nor can we sense the deflection in our guts while moving. No wonder that the structure and dynamics of mesoscale eddies is not common knowledge. Indeed, when we conducted EIFEX in 2004 no one believed that the eddy rotated coherently from top to bottom, i.e. that horizontal speeds on the way down remained the same, layer by layer. Particles sinking out from the surface at, say 500 m/day, did not lag behind the parcel of water in the surface from which they emanated until they reached the sediment surface. Vertical profiles and Argos-type buoys showed this was true. There is no scope for a parcel of water to detach from its layer and traverse the underlying layers.
My knowledge, I might say understanding, of eddies is based on over 2 years spent on board RV Polarstern, mostly in the roaring forties and furious fifties of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the Weddell Sea, ground-truthing their structure and dynamics. We studied mesoscale eddies in satellite images of sea surface height (SSHA) and dissected them with profiling transects during field surveys and subsequently studied their dynamics in detail. The biggest test came while tracking the moving fertilized patch during 3 OIF experiments within selected eddies for up to 38 days. Nerve-wracking but also triumphant when we did find the patch each time.
Btw, exciting new information and insights are emerging about the effects of eddies on the sea floor.
I agree with the various points made in the emails of this thread, but I would like to make a comment regarding C-sequestration on land. According to the Global Carbon Budget, land plants have removed about 200 Gt C since the beginning of industrialisation. This is equivalent to 100 ppm, the difference between ice and warm ages (180 and 280 ppm respectively). This is well-established but not enough publicised. That the ocean has taken up a similar amount is not surprising because its chemistry and physics at work. That the biosphere has shown itself capable of removing at least 2 Gt C annually through 150 years, given the right conditions, is surprising. The CO2 taken up has gone into the “land sink” across the spectrum from living biomass (vegetation) to detritus buried in soil. The factors that enable this extra uptake are believed to be 1) CO2 fertilization of primary production which improves water-use efficiency and 2) anthropogenically fixed nitrogen delivered directly by rivers or in a diffuse way via the atmosphere. The former factor was probably the “lid” that kept Holocene CO2 levels at 280 ppm for over 10,000 years, when the balance could be drastically changed in just a century. Total carbon in land plants is estimated at 450 Gt C, so the 200 Gt C should be easy to identify, but is not. I presume that a lot of it is in undergrowth, as suggested by Mike, particularly in regions with moderate rainfall where canopy trees with deep roots outcompete shallow rooted undergrowth that provide the fuel for wild fires. So the land sink is not really secure over the long term of several decades. Assuming global primary production levels similar to today’s values of 100 Gt C per year, the turnover time of atmospheric CO2 of 180 ppm would be just 4 years! In today’s world it is still less than 10 years. How was such a delicate balance maintained over the Holocene, given all the inputs and outputs disrupted by the rise of Homo sapiens from hunter-gatherer to modern civilisation?
I will attend today’s ExOIS meeting but we don’t have to discuss this matter.
With my best wishes to all, particularly to Peter. I do hope your enthusiasm is not weakened but redirected to the facts.
Victor Smetacek
________________________________________
From: Alan Burnham [akbu...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 25 January 2026 04:19
To: Alan Burnham
Cc: Peter Fiekowsky; Ken Buesseler; b.frank....@gmx.de; brent....@earthandwatergroup.com; cdou...@gmail.com; chris...@calton.us; cmr...@gmail.com; dan...@liquidtrees.org; danmi...@gmail.com; da...@42tek.com; edward...@gmail.com; emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org; evanhu...@yahoo.com; fmcch...@gmail.com; hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com; ilan....@gmail.com; ja...@lucentbiosciences.com; jenn.b...@positivepolar.com; jo...@transmediavision.net; ju...@f4cr.org; kevin...@gmail.com; la...@thorntonusa.com; nali...@carnegiestewart.com; pcpet...@me.com; peterdr...@yahoo.com; pgro...@gmail.com; pre...@temcapital.com; rjwe...@gmail.com; sai...@newconsensus.com; stevenja...@gmail.com; ted.cr...@gmail.com; thanh....@gmail.com; tomi....@oceanry.org; tony.mich...@gmail.com; tuc...@americangeo.org; Victor Smetacek; votec...@gmail.com; za...@newconsensus.com; Fei Chai; Seth John; Carl Page; Greg Rau; Philip Boyd; Ken Caldeira; Michael Hayes; Tom Goreau; Wil Burns; healthy-planet-action-coalition; Andrew Birchenough; Renaud de RICHTER; Carbon Dioxide Removal; Ralph Keeling; Michael MacCracken
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: Localized Ocean Fertilization is not OIF. It's vastly better
Dear All,
I am a reluctant participant in this discussion, being a coauthor on the cited preprint but having no direct input to the substack article. The preprint had some significant flaws, and it is currently being changed substantially. I think the substack article was premature, but the current discussion is very helpful in getting the revised preprint right. I am honored to engage with such an august group. I am personally skeptical about OIF scaling to 20 Gt/yr, especially within a decade, and that thrust has been scaled way back in the current draft. But I can’t dismiss it out of hand, either, without additional information.
We need to be careful not to conflate separate issues. For Pinatubo, I’ll simplify to three, albeit related. There is the related issue of why Pinatubo, Tambora, and Billy Mitchell are unique in their CO2 reduction impact, if in fact they truly are.
For Pinatubo:
(1) How large was the prompt (3 yr) CO2 reduction?
(2) What was the primary cause?
(3) How long did it last?
The discussion order of the second and third issues is debatable.
Some criticize our method for estimating (1) and even doubt whether there was a change. This seems odd. Our mean estimate of 2.27 ppm (17.8 Gt) is really 15-20 Gt given uncertainty. Sarmiento estimated 12 Gt by mid-1993, and Jones and Cox (2001) estimated 27 Gt by 1995. We are slightly above the middle. We’ve been criticized for averaging out the effects of El Niño rather than subtracting out the oscillations, but we doubt there should be much difference. Those who prefer the subtraction approach done by Jones and Cox might explain the additional 10 Gt taken out between 1995 and 2000 by their method. It doesn't look right to us.
I think everyone agrees that enhanced CO2 solubility in the ocean is not the answer. I integrated the CO2 flux anomalies of Fay et al (2023) over time. The negative flux from 1991-1994 stores only 0.5 Gt, and 0.2 Gt of that is released during the following four years.
This result brings up an important point. Some flux mechanisms are reversible, and if fully reversible, there is no net storage after a few years. Consequently, if the lifetime of our reduction is correct, some mechanisms are disqualified. So, the answer to (3) influences how much we should care about (2). Trees are largely not reversible within 30 yrs, but my reading suggests soil respiration is more important. Is it reversible in a few years?
Also relevant is the observation that Tambora and Billy Mitchell had larger, persistent CO2 reductions than Pinatubo, while Krakatoa, Long Island PNG, and Huaynaputina had less, even thought they were larger. If our table is wrong in that regard, we encourage those who can to correct it, but it shouldn’t be simply ignored.
I’ve not heard a cogent argument about why our methodology for assessing the lifetime of the Pinatubo drawdown is incorrect, even though it is simple. Other methods calculate similar phenomena, but I have not seen a comparison of modeled atmospheric CO2 concentrations comparable to ours. McKinley et al (2020) come the closest in their Fig. 3a, but the linear extrapolation shown there is not relevant for many reasons. If I am missing something, I would be happy to be educated.
I’ll leave with two reflections on history. Wegener’s theory of continental drift was rejected for 50 years before the mechanism was figured out. Newton’s law of gravity not working well for Mercury’s orbit was one of the inspirations for Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which resolved a 50-yr-old mystery.
Best regards,
Alan Burnham
On Saturday, January 24, 2026 at 02:24:44 PM PST, Ralph Keeling <rkee...@ucsd.edu> wrote:
Dear all,
I’m jumping late on this tread and without full context, but perhaps these thoughts are relevant:
One cannot use the Mauna Loa record to conclude that the anomalous update of CO2 associated 1991 Pinatubo remained permanently sequestered. This requires knowing what would have happened without the eruption over the subsequent years and decades, which we cannot assess to the level required. I see no need to doubt that it was temporary.
The atmospheric O2 measurements in my group started around 1990 so the anomaly in 1991/1992 was near the very beginning of the record. The data were sparse, and at the time there were no other groups making measurements to replicate our results. The data indeed seemed to indicate an anomalous O2 flux from the ocean. But even if real, I would not try to draw any strong conclusions from this about either land or ocean carbon sinks at that time. The air-sea fluxes of O2 and CO2 are not coupled in any simple way, so it’s quite possible that the oceans were a source for O2 without necessarily being a comparably large ocean sink or source of CO2. Based on current understanding, most of the interannual variability in CO2 is terrestrial in origin.
-Ralph
From: Michael MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net<mailto:mmac...@comcast.net>>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 1:55 PM
To: Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>>; Ken Buesseler <kbues...@whoi.edu<mailto:kbues...@whoi.edu>>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: akbu...@yahoo.com<mailto:akbu...@yahoo.com>; b.frank....@gmx.de<mailto:b.frank....@gmx.de>; brent....@earthandwatergroup.com<mailto:brent....@earthandwatergroup.com>; cdou...@gmail.com<mailto:cdou...@gmail.com>; chris...@calton.us<mailto:chris...@calton.us>; cmr...@gmail.com<mailto:cmr...@gmail.com>; dan...@liquidtrees.org<mailto:dan...@liquidtrees.org>; danmi...@gmail.com<mailto:danmi...@gmail.com>; da...@42tek.com<mailto:da...@42tek.com>; edward...@gmail.com<mailto:edward...@gmail.com>; emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org<mailto:emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org> <emma-r...@alumni.stanford.edu<mailto:emma-r...@alumni.stanford.edu>>; evanhu...@yahoo.com<mailto:evanhu...@yahoo.com>; fmcch...@gmail.com<mailto:fmcch...@gmail.com>; hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com<mailto:hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com>; ilan....@gmail.com<mailto:ilan....@gmail.com>; ja...@lucentbiosciences.com<mailto:ja...@lucentbiosciences.com>; jenn.b...@positivepolar.com<mailto:jenn.b...@positivepolar.com>; jo...@transmediavision.net<mailto:jo...@transmediavision.net>; ju...@f4cr.org<mailto:ju...@f4cr.org>; kevin...@gmail.com<mailto:kevin...@gmail.com>; la...@thorntonusa.com<mailto:la...@thorntonusa.com>; nali...@carnegiestewart.com<mailto:nali...@carnegiestewart.com>; pcpet...@me.com<mailto:pcpet...@me.com>; peterdr...@yahoo.com<mailto:peterdr...@yahoo.com>; pgro...@gmail.com<mailto:pgro...@gmail.com>; pre...@temcapital.com<mailto:pre...@temcapital.com>; rjwe...@gmail.com<mailto:rjwe...@gmail.com>; sai...@newconsensus.com<mailto:sai...@newconsensus.com>; stevenja...@gmail.com<mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>; ted.cr...@gmail.com<mailto:ted.cr...@gmail.com> <tedcro...@gmail.com<mailto:tedcro...@gmail.com>>; thanh....@gmail.com<mailto:thanh....@gmail.com>; tomi....@oceanry.org<mailto:tomi....@oceanry.org>; tony.mich...@gmail.com<mailto:tony.mich...@gmail.com>; tuc...@americangeo.org<mailto:tuc...@americangeo.org>; victor....@awi.de<mailto:victor....@awi.de>; votec...@gmail.com<mailto:votec...@gmail.com>; za...@newconsensus.com<mailto:za...@newconsensus.com>; Ralph Keeling <rkee...@ucsd.edu<mailto:rkee...@ucsd.edu>>; Fei Chai <fcha...@gmail.com<mailto:fcha...@gmail.com>>; Seth John <seth...@usc.edu<mailto:seth...@usc.edu>>; Carl Page <carl...@gmail.com<mailto:carl...@gmail.com>>; Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>; Philip Boyd <phili...@utas.edu.au<mailto:phili...@utas.edu.au>>; Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com<mailto:electro...@gmail.com>>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org<mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org>>; Wil Burns <w...@feronia.org<mailto:w...@feronia.org>>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>>; Andrew Birchenough <ABir...@imo.org<mailto:ABir...@imo.org>>; Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com<mailto:renaud.d...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [HPAC] Re: Localized Ocean Fertilization is not OIF. It's vastly better
Hi Peter--
One point of your analysis that I consider weak before getting to your hypothesis of ocean eddy uptake is that I don't see how tree rings not showing growth rules out terrestrial carbon uptake. That Pinatubo caused an increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is based, as I understand it, on the downward light, being more diffuse, getting greater penetration to the understory vegetation and this is where the additional carbon is taken up, not by the trees and so not evident in the tree rings.
As to suggestion that this uptake would not sequester carbon over more than a few years, I can speak only from my experience in the woods of northwestern Connecticut where our summer home is and that is that there sure seems to have built up a lot of understory litter (small diameter starts of trees that just did not make it, and not just more leaves) that does not seem to decay very fast and then also, with some warming, denser vegetation, often of new types that are often referred to as invasive. At least in New England, which was essentially deforested for charcoal ad building wooden ships through the 19th century and beyond, my sense is that the reforestation process taking place is ongoing and continuing to build up soil carbon. In that this reforestation has been going on at least somewhat in other regions that had been deforested, might that be where the extra carbon has gone? I would think isotopic analyses might give clues to resolving this and would thus think a good bit more careful analysis is needed to rule out the forest under-story hypothesis.
Best, Mike MacCracken
On 1/24/26 1:55 PM, Peter Fiekowsky wrote:
Dear Chris Vivian, Ken Buesseler, and the whole CDR community,
Thank you for responding powerfully and thoughtfully to my substack piece<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climaterestoration.substack.com/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9BaYRMNA$>. A special thank you for your courage and effort in reviewing and responding to it. Your input has been most useful to me and my team in maturing this work. I see a possible resolution, proposed at the end. Please stick with me here.
We are all in this together…collaboration creates the best breakthrough outcomes, especially after conflict.
As Chris Vivian (co-chair of the UN GESAMP group on marine environmental protection) said below and two years ago, and Ken reiterates, removing 12 or 17 Gt of CO2 in the 18 months following Mt. Pinatubo is implausible given what the field has known for decades about ocean biological carbon pumps.
My work on this started with studying Sarmiento (1993<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.1038/365697a0__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9wC8NUpk$>) (no paywall here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ac7kqnvivrwl7glwa238f/Sarmiento-1993.pdf?rlkey=hbaorqznze6cy3d7n424d034h&dl=0__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9QHR9Ti4$>), in which he discusses work with David and Ralph Keeling. Sarmiento noted a 1.5 ppm CO2-removal anomaly following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, for which the plausible explanation at the time was a phytoplankton carbon pump. They largely excluded terrestrial photosynthesis based on the O2 to CO2 ratio.
Today their conclusion (and mine) are that Mauna Loa data shows CO2 removal 5 to 10 times faster than GESAMP tells us is possible in the whole ocean. That fact makes Sarmiento's phytoplankton pump model implausible and therefore wrong. Its careful analyses are seldom considered now.
In 1993 Sarmiento had just two years of data after the eruption, and today we have over 30 years. We extended the CO2 data analysis well beyond the end of the 1991-1995 El Nino, as shown in fig. 1. The long-term analysis increases the removal somewhat to 2.25 ppm and shows, remarkably, that the removed CO2 has not perceptibly returned to the atmosphere. References and details are in our forthcoming paper.
This permanence further eliminates CO2 removal models based on terrestrial carbon capture, of which only a small fraction sustains beyond a year. It also disqualifies aerosol induced sunlight and temperature effects which also would last 1-2 years and contribute less than 4% to the anomaly according to Sarmiento.
Long-term carbon removal begs the question of where 2.5 Gt of carbon (Sarmiento) could hide where it has not yet been found. Tree ring data indicates slowed (not increased) terrestrial growth corresponding to the 2% lower solar flux.
Most critically, no excess seafloor carbon or increased fish catch has been reported from that time, according to experts.
The downwelling eddy hypothesis solves this mystery. It calls for the biocarbon to dissolve into bicarbonate as it sinks towards the 3 km depth of the Pinatubo ashfall area. Overall that huge 2.5 Gt of removed carbon would increase ocean bicarbonate concentration by an undetectable 0.01%.
Further analysis, comparing the Pinatubo CO2 anomaly, as Sarmiento called it, to other eruptions which cooled the planet similarly, show that only 3 of 9 such eruptions since 1500 preceded a CO2 anomaly. Those 3, and only those, had ash fall in regions near downwelling eddies.
No ashfall near eddies corresponds to no CO2 anomaly. Fig 1 top panel shows the two eruptions in the Keeling Curve timeframe with significant cooling but no CO2 anomaly. This data further disqualifies terrestrial carbon and aerosol induced explanations which should occur after all such large eruptions.
[cid:2zeSLrGtxrQASXJJVAmw]
Fig. 1. The lower panel compares actual CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa (solid blue) with expected CO2 levels (dotted green). The discrepancy indicates long-term removal of 2.25 ppm of CO2. The upper panel shows that two eruptions of similar size and global cooling impact, Agung (1963) and El Chichon (1983) led to no persistent CO2 removal. (from Fiekowsky and Burnham, 2025<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6960838/v1__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9Kg5jBa4$>)
This new model, which we call Localized Ocean Fertilization (LOF), is described in a substack<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climaterestoration.substack.com/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9BaYRMNA$> and a paper being prepared for publication. It extends Sarmiento’s model with two processes.
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climaterestoration.substack.com/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9BaYRMNA$>
Localized ocean fertilization is not OIF....It’s vastly better
Peter Fiekowsky
I have a confession.
First is ocean fertilization by volcanic ash, distributed in a region with downwelling eddies. Sufficient iron distribution allows nitrogen-fixing Trichodesmium to grow, thus providing nitrates needed to support rapid photosynthesis and phytoplankton growth over multiple months (fig. 1).
Second, we propose that the eddy pulls significant biocarbon down to the ocean depths before fish eat and metabolize most of it back into CO2, as is consistently observed with OIF in non-eddy regions. This explains the 67% of large eruptions with no CO2 impact. The downward eddy flow gradually pulls fresh nutrient rich surrounding water into the area.
Recent work by Sophie Bonnet and Seth John confirm that an increased supply of iron enables the growth of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which in turn provide nitrates that sustain phytoplankton blooms. Seth John further points to flexibility in the amount of phosphorus required.
So far, the LOF hypothesis, to be published soon, is validated by carbon-sequestration data from several sources: 1) ice core data related to nine large volcanic eruptions over the last 500 years; 2) NASA’s OCO-2 and OCO-3 satellites, and 3) Smetacek’s 2004 EIFEX experiment. They all point to the role of downwelling eddies as dominant in marine carbon sequestration. In conclusion, I propose that we interimly agree to 1) accept Sarmiento’s and Keeling’s 1993 analysis, and 2) collaboratively test the proposed LOF model that explains the extended duration, magnitude, and carbon undetectability of post-eruption CO2 removal.
In conclusion, I propose that we tentatively agree to 1) accept Sarmiento’s and Keelings’ 1993 analysis, and 2) collaboratively test the proposed LOF model that explains the extended duration, magnitude and carbon undetectability of post-eruption CO2 removal. If the LOF model is falsified and no other hypotheses emerge that can explain the Keeling Curve CO2 data, then dismissing Sarmiento’s analysis could again be the wise approach.
Chris and Ken—would you consider that temporary, two part proposal?
Would you schedule time to discuss it next week?
With deep respect and appreciation,
Peter
Peter Fiekowsky
Substack: Climate Restoration<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climaterestoration.substack.com/__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9t0gFnQ8$>
TEDx: How to End the Climate Crisis by 2050<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPl7PNF-APU__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH96wToEQQ$>
Book: Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.amazon.com/Climate-Restoration-Future-Sustain-Human/dp/1953943101/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9STs5I5E$>
PeterFiekowsky.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/peterfiekowsky.com/__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9m-gDT3g$> | Climate Restoration 2025<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/presentation/d/1eWLFNnv72jI6k9B4l1ZYNMEtx47tqaO_E9hpFXC5leg/edit?usp=sharing__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH92scv64Q$>
(650) 776-6871 Los Altos, California
--------------------------------------------
From a cross post from Chris vivian:
Peter,
There are quite a number of problems with your Localized Ocean Fertilization (LOF) proposal, most of which you are already aware of (e.g., see my email response to you of 12 September 2023). In my attached response I will primarily focus on your estimate of the CO2 decline after the Mt Pinatubo eruption and make some short comments about a few other points.
The conclusion of my response is:
There was no large-scale ocean fertilization event in the South China Sea in 1992-1993 following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 as:
• Your calculation of the estimated CO2 removal is based on a flawed methodology that greatly exaggerates the decline in atmospheric CO2 and is thus invalid.
• The real removal of atmospheric CO2 in that period was due to terrestrial uptake, mainly in North America, coupled with a reduction in emissions that together explain the actual decline in atmospheric CO2.
• Consequently, there is no need to invoke speculative Local Ocean Fertilization to explain the decline in atmospheric CO2 following the Mt Pinatubo eruption.
Best wishes
Chris.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 12:15?PM Ken Buesseler <kbues...@whoi.edu<mailto:kbues...@whoi.edu>> wrote:
Apologies for cross postings today, but Peter asked for comment and here is mine on scaling of C sinks and ocean area required to support localized OIF.
Hi Peter et al.
Here is some feedback as requested on your latest blog on Pinatubo and ocean iron fertilization (OIF) and its outsized impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Bottom line is there are simply not enough nutrients nor phytoplankton to support your claims.
Let’s take a moment to consider the ocean’s biological carbon pump (BCP) and the opinion that past events (1992 Pinatubo eruption) or purposeful ocean iron fertilization could conceivably remove close to 20 Gt CO2-eq (one Gt = 1 billion tonnes) of atmospheric CO2, by processes that take place in only 1/1000th of the area of the ocean. The latest incarnation of this claim<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/climaterestoration.substack.com/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is?r=3el77h&sort=new__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9Y8EbpSc$> invokes nitrogen fixers and downwelling eddies to act as conduits to fast track organic carbon flow to the ocean depths.
There are many published papers about how the Pinatubo eruption and subsequent reduction of atmospheric CO2, need not involve marine phytoplankton at all (e.g. McKinley et al.<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000149__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH94dBG_Ns$>). This claim to the contrary requires considering ocean productivity, which depends upon sunlight and nutrients, and scaling to regional and global impacts.
To grow, phytoplankton requires not just iron and any nitrogen they can source from N2 fixation, but also phosphorus and other essential micronutrients. Drawing on Alfred Redfield’s seminal ratio of phytoplankton C and major nutrients in the ocean- C:N:P = 106:16:1, and even though the Redfield ratio can vary by a factor of two or more under some circumstances, there is no way to support a 20 Gt BCP without 1000’s of times more P supply than in the surface ocean For example, assuming that open ocean surface waters contain 0.01-0.05 µmol P per liter for a 50 m photic zone in 1/1000th of the ocean area, then one falls many orders of magnitude short of P needed to support of 20 Gt CO2 removal by.
Even if there were enough P available for phytoplankton to do this, how would this compare to the global range of phytoplankton biomass (0.1-1 Gt C) and net productivity rates (50-60 Gt C/yr). All together, these phytoplankton and marine food webs support a global BCP<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00927-0__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9phaqWTw$> that is on order 5-12 Gt C/yr (19-45 Gt CO2-eq). So how can one claim that in only 1/1000th of the ocean, this volcanic event was of similar scale?
Peter Fiekowsky has started attributing a quote to me that I used at COP30, which I want to correctly attribute to Daniel Patrick Moynahan- “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts”.
You can have an opinion of a 20 Gt CO2 Pinatubo based OIF ocean sink, and claim it can be done in 1/1000th of the ocean, but you need to back that up with an answer to where do all of these marine phytoplankton come from, or more fundamentally where do all the nutrients come from? That’s at the crux of this opinion vs fact-based assessment of the scale responsible OIF might contribute to marine CO2 removal (on order single Gt<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.17226/26278__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9blGxhvU$> CO2/yr).
Yes, the BCP can be responsive to iron, and volcanic eruptions release iron, but there are physical limits and here, facts matter. Call it by a new name, “localized” OIF, and invoke downwelling eddies, or not. But it’s an opinion and not a fact, if it’s not supported by a simple mass balance for all the nutrients and massive phytoplankton C growth needed to invoke OIF as the cause. Grossly exaggerating OIF’s impacts only erodes the public trust. We don’t have to over promise to consider OIF as one of several marine carbon dioxide removal approaches that deserves further study<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/oceaniron.org/__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9hYKY-tI$>. Beliefs or opinions are best kept out of this.
Thanks for your consideration.
Ken Buesseler
Emeritus Research Scholar, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://cafethorium.whoi.edu<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/cafethorium.whoi.edu/__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9nD13Qig$> @cafethorium.bsky.social
Director, Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity
http://www.whoi.edu/CMER<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.whoi.edu/CMER__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9u65mGew$>
Executive Director, Exploring Ocean Iron Solutions
https://oceaniron.org/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/oceaniron.org/__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9hYKY-tI$> @exois-oceaniron.bsky.social
From: Google Calendar <calendar-n...@google.com<mailto:calendar-n...@google.com>> On Behalf Of Peter Fiekowsky
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 3:51 PM
To: akbu...@yahoo.com<mailto:akbu...@yahoo.com>; b.frank....@gmx.de<mailto:b.frank....@gmx.de>; brent....@earthandwatergroup.com<mailto:brent....@earthandwatergroup.com>; cdou...@gmail.com<mailto:cdou...@gmail.com>; chris...@calton.us<mailto:chris...@calton.us>; cmr...@gmail.com<mailto:cmr...@gmail.com>; dan...@liquidtrees.org<mailto:dan...@liquidtrees.org>; danmi...@gmail.com<mailto:danmi...@gmail.com>; da...@42tek.com<mailto:da...@42tek.com>; edward...@gmail.com<mailto:edward...@gmail.com>; emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org<mailto:emma-r...@stanfordalumni.org> <emma-r...@alumni.stanford.edu<mailto:emma-r...@alumni.stanford.edu>>; evanhu...@yahoo.com<mailto:evanhu...@yahoo.com>; fmcch...@gmail.com<mailto:fmcch...@gmail.com>; hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com<mailto:hugo.hi...@positivepolar.com>; ilan....@gmail.com<mailto:ilan....@gmail.com>; ja...@lucentbiosciences.com<mailto:ja...@lucentbiosciences.com>; jenn.b...@positivepolar.com<mailto:jenn.b...@positivepolar.com>; jo...@transmediavision.net<mailto:jo...@transmediavision.net>; ju...@f4cr.org<mailto:ju...@f4cr.org>; Ken Buesseler <kbues...@whoi.edu<mailto:kbues...@whoi.edu>>; kevin...@gmail.com<mailto:kevin...@gmail.com>; la...@thorntonusa.com<mailto:la...@thorntonusa.com>; nali...@carnegiestewart.com<mailto:nali...@carnegiestewart.com>; pcpet...@me.com<mailto:pcpet...@me.com>; peterdr...@yahoo.com<mailto:peterdr...@yahoo.com>; pgro...@gmail.com<mailto:pgro...@gmail.com>; pre...@temcapital.com<mailto:pre...@temcapital.com>; rjwe...@gmail.com<mailto:rjwe...@gmail.com>; sai...@newconsensus.com<mailto:sai...@newconsensus.com>; stevenja...@gmail.com<mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>; ted.cr...@gmail.com<mailto:ted.cr...@gmail.com> <tedcro...@gmail.com<mailto:tedcro...@gmail.com>>; thanh....@gmail.com<mailto:thanh....@gmail.com>; tomi....@oceanry.org<mailto:tomi....@oceanry.org>; tony.mich...@gmail.com<mailto:tony.mich...@gmail.com>; tuc...@americangeo.org<mailto:tuc...@americangeo.org>; victor....@awi.de<mailto:victor....@awi.de>; votec...@gmail.com<mailto:votec...@gmail.com>; za...@newconsensus.com<mailto:za...@newconsensus.com>; Peter Fiekowsky <pfi...@gmail.com<mailto:pfi...@gmail.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Localized Ocean Fertilization is not OIF. It's vastly better
2026 OIF Consortium
We discussed this new substack piece on the OIF Consortium call.
I'm excited to share this with everyone.
Note the new discussion comparing the 1%-2% of carbon that sinks as diatoms and the 50% carbon sequestration in downwelling eddies.
https://open.substack.com/pub/climaterestoration/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/open.substack.com/pub/climaterestoration/p/localized-ocean-fertilization-is?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email__;!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9kezRAS4$>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAEr4H2nzdQas6Hq2HvdcgFBV77Bo0AcpAQYPni12Z_vxYzPPUg%40mail.gmail.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAEr4H2nzdQas6Hq2HvdcgFBV77Bo0AcpAQYPni12Z_vxYzPPUg*40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer__;JQ!!Mih3wA!DI88gSmevrnzStXlLkg74OfKiIZ47-_aAvUKKzgwjgxbT5T0kmoivLpEEjkq7yeWr9GJXelGJNH9AfOkhGk$>.